Maximum Heart Rate -- (an)aerobic?

[old] gcanyon · Post by **[old] gcanyon** » February 3rd, 2006, 10:55 am

I've been rowing for about two months. I'm generally not very active, but my body is naturally on the lean side. I'm 42, 6'4", 180lbs. My resting heart rate was about 65 two months ago, now it's more like 60.<br /><br />Once I get used to exercising, I've always been able to maintain a high heart rate -- 170 or so -- for an hour or more.<br /><br />Last night I rowed a personal best 5k: 20:27.9, woo hoo! Dwayne K. Adams better start looking over his shoulder, I'm gaining

<br /><br />My heart rate was 177 for the first 1k, 181 for the second and third k, and 189 for the last 2k. That seems high, but it wasn't terribly uncomfortable. So my questions are:<br /><br /> -- rowing for 20 minutes, I couldn't have been going anaerobic, could I? That's too long to be anaerobic, right?<br /> -- 185+- is a pretty fast heart rate to still be aerobic, right?<br /> -- Curious if anyone else will share their heart rate/age while doing a hard row.

[old] Ray79 · Post by **[old] Ray79** » February 3rd, 2006, 11:28 am

Dunno, I never use a HRM when rowing, but if i was going all out for a pb, it would really be as hard as I could go. I would reckon i could get my Hr up to over 190, possibly more, and that is with a resting Hr of 45.<br /><br />Still feels aerobic to me going by my breathing afterwards

[old] Chris-lbc · Post by **[old] Chris-lbc** » February 3rd, 2006, 11:39 am

I've got mine up to 210 on a half hour but that was pretty uncomfortable. Apparently heart rates go highest on 20-30 minute rows.

[old] gcanyon · Post by **[old] gcanyon** » February 3rd, 2006, 1:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Ray79 @ Feb 3 2006, 07:28 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>30mins @ r20 7961 <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What does the r20 in the above mean? I assume the 7961 is meters.

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » February 3rd, 2006, 2:33 pm

r20 means stroke rate=20. 30min at r20 is a popular row, and a popular benchmark, and on the UK forum there are whole threads dedicated to it.<br /><br />An all out 5k is a pretty good max HR test, so seeing 189 suggests that is close to your max. I have seen ranges of 189-192 in 5k races, so I consider that my max.<br /><br />I don't really have an answer or an understanding as to why you and I and others can row for long distances with our HR's apparently in the TR or anaerobic ranges. In my 10k PB races for example, I may be over 170 most of the way, and over 175-180 for 10 or more minutes down the stretch. My guess is that this is common for races, and the HR limits and ranges really apply to training. I have wondered about not using my HR monitor for races, since it can psyche you out, but it also have the opposite affect too, if in the middle of the race your HR is still low, and you feel under control.

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » February 3rd, 2006, 3:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ Feb 3 2006, 06:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't really have an answer or an understanding as to why you and I and others can row for long distances with our HR's apparently in the TR or anaerobic ranges. In my 10k PB races for example, I may be over 170 most of the way, and over 175-180 for 10 or more minutes down the stretch. My guess is that this is common for races, and the HR limits and ranges really apply to training. I have wondered about not using my HR monitor for races, since it can psyche you out, but it also have the opposite affect too, if in the middle of the race your HR is still low, and you feel under control. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I have used my HR monitor once in a 10k run race. 30 seconds before the start, my HR was already at 140! Talk about anticipation! After 3 k, my HR was at 180. Between the 6th and 9th km it was 184, the last km it was at 187, and the last 300m it maxed out at 193. Those last 300m were extremely painful.<br /><br />I agree with Michael that using a HR during races can psyche you out. I much prefer to rely on my breathing and how I feel. When on the treadmill, my HR can fluctuate by 10 bpm depending on whether I am thinking about something exciting, like an incoming race, or something relaxing! Yet the perceived effort is the same.<br /><br />On the erg, there is even less reasons to use a HR during a PB attempt, since one always knows the pace.<br /><br />One goes "anaerobic" when one produces more lactic acid than what can be removed. Usually, this happen at the end of a race, even long ones. There is a change in the breathing pattern at that point and a HR associated with it. That HR is not cast in concrete and can be improved with training.<br /><br />Also the achievable Max HR depends on the discipline. It is higher in running than cycling or erging. It is even lower in swimming due to body position.<br /><br />There is also HR drift that happens when exercising. For instance, if I run for 40 min, my HR is usually stable for 20 min, say at 140, then starts to slowly increase and ends up at 150.<br /><br />For all those reasons, I now take HR monitoring with a grain of salt. In fact it can be counterproductive if it prevents other type of information (feeling, breathing) to reach consciousness. My best races were almost out of body experiences, where my mind was floating besides my body. The last thing I would have wanted is to be brought back to earth and having to constantly watch my HR monitor! <br /><br />Francois

[old] ljwagner · Post by **[old] ljwagner** » February 6th, 2006, 5:42 pm

gcanyon, <br /><br /> Anaerobic is a continuum. At a little bit anaerobic, most people don't feel it. When you can maintain the pace, but are still getting worn down, it may be anaerobic even though it is maintainable. <br /><br /> What do you call "not terribly uncomfortable" ? Mid December, I felt some very, very minor discomfort rowing 2Ks. My doctor said it was nothing. But three weeks later I had triple bypass surgery, after numerous bouts of unprovoked severe chest pain. Rowing gave me good secondary circulation, which seems to be the only reason I did not drop dead.<br /><br /> HR rowing and running stairs gets way out of line with what is described as safe. Monitor if you like. For rehab, as I did last year, and will do again this year, HR is wise for many months. If in excellent health, pay more attention to your breathing and perceived effort. Especially to a painless chest. <br /><br /> Those little pains I had, turned out to be two coronary arteries 99% blocked, and the other one 80% blocked at multiple sites. Only an angiogram showed the problem. All other tests were negative for any problem at all. I had not had any heart damage, which is what all the tests reveal. But I was about as close to a severe heart attack as one can get without damage. The angiogram was at 10:00AM on a Thursday, the surgery was at 7:00AM the following morning.

[old] gcanyon · Post by **[old] gcanyon** » February 6th, 2006, 7:56 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ljwagner @ Feb 6 2006, 01:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>gcanyon, <br /><br /> What do you call "not terribly uncomfortable" ? Mid December, I felt some very, very minor discomfort rowing 2Ks. My doctor said it was nothing. But three weeks later I had triple bypass surgery, after numerous bouts of unprovoked severe chest pain. Rowing gave me good secondary circulation, which seems to be the only reason I did not drop dead. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Speaking as a fellow near-death survivor (not a heart attack), glad to hear you didn't drop dead

<br /><br />"not terribly uncomfortable" in this case means that I was in no actual pain, but I was pushing as hard as I could and acutely aware of the fact that my lungs were the limiting factor. I was breathing as quickly as I could by the end (three breaths per stroke) and still not getting enough oxygen. Any time I skipped a breath to lick my lips or sip water, my performance dropped measurably for a few breaths subsequently.<br /><br />I have two or three times finished a row and spent the next ten minutes wondering whether I was going to throw up, with the feeling of a branding iron in my chest. Given that I remember that feeling well from my high school days I'm assuming that it's not what a clogged artery feels like. Time will tell if I'm correct.<br /><br />Still, your post makes me think that I want to get a stress test on my heart somewhere along the way. I do _feel_ fine... Guess I'll go ahead and do another 10k tonight...

[old] ljwagner · Post by **[old] ljwagner** » February 16th, 2006, 8:40 pm

At 42, your doctor probably will tell you your max HR should be 178, and not likely he'll take you higher during a treadmill stress test. You can probably stay at 178 for an hour or more.<br /><br /> Sounds to me you are creeping past your arobic limits into partial anaerobic territory. You can maintain it, but the HR goes up faster and faster, and when done, you are really out of breath. In my recent reading on O2 debt and recovery, you'll be less out of breath and recover faster if you can keep rowing at whatever light pace you can manage afterwards. Stopping entirely is not as bad as putting a bag over your head to cut off air, but continuing to move (60% effort the recommended ideal) is a lot better for O2 recovery.<br /><br /> That severe chest pain I had, was without breathing hard, in fact, I was doing very little, and then was just in a lot of pain, had trouble breathing, and was in a cold sweat for 5-30 minutes. Out of control pain for no apparent reason. <br /><br /> You might consider keeping your max HR lower, even if you can drive it up higher. A bit more of the long rows, at HRs more around 160 or 170. I intend to do long rows at moderate HR rates as I recover. I'll start around HR of 120. Slow and boring, but necessary, and cautious.

[old] BobD · Post by **[old] BobD** » February 17th, 2006, 3:20 am

You guys might look here: [url=http://stevenscreek.com/goodies/hr.shtml] It calculates my max for Age 66 at 172 based on a resting HR of 55. Most training experts assume that anerobic starts at over 85% of max.<br /><br />So it looks like this: Based on an age of 66 and using the formula 205 - Age/2 (Fit)<br />Maximum Heart Rate (Calculated) = 172<br /> % of Maximum Heart Rate Reserve*<br />Percent 60 sec. 10 sec. 60 sec. 10 sec.<br />------- ------- ------- ------- -------<br /> 100 172.0 28.7 172.0 28.7<br /> 95 163.4 27.2 166.1 27.7<br /> 90 154.8 25.8 160.3 26.7<br /> 85 146.2 24.4 154.4 25.7<br /> 80 137.6 22.9 148.6 24.8<br /> 75 129.0 21.5 142.7 23.8<br /> 70 120.4 20.1 136.9 22.8<br /> 65 111.8 18.6 131.0 21.8<br /> 60 103.2 17.2 125.2 20.9<br /> 55 94.6 15.8 119.3 19.9<br /><br />* Percent of maximum, corrected for resting heart rate of 55<br />I peak at at between 85 and 90% of max. and average about 78% of max during normal training.

[old] Ben Rea · Post by **[old] Ben Rea** » February 17th, 2006, 7:29 am

can anyone tell me why a young rower (age 15) would get a heart rate monitor? i just dont see the use.......

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » February 17th, 2006, 7:44 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(gcanyon @ Feb 3 2006, 03:55 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I've been rowing for about two months. I'm generally not very active, but my body is naturally on the lean side. I'm 42, 6'4", 180lbs. My resting heart rate was about 65 two months ago, now it's more like 60.<br /><br />Once I get used to exercising, I've always been able to maintain a high heart rate -- 170 or so -- for an hour or more.<br /><br />Last night I rowed a personal best 5k: 20:27.9, woo hoo! Dwayne K. Adams better start looking over his shoulder, I'm gaining

<br /><br />My heart rate was 177 for the first 1k, 181 for the second and third k, and 189 for the last 2k. That seems high, but it wasn't terribly uncomfortable. So my questions are:<br /><br /> -- rowing for 20 minutes, I couldn't have been going anaerobic, could I? That's too long to be anaerobic, right?<br /> -- 185+- is a pretty fast heart rate to still be aerobic, right?<br /> -- Curious if anyone else will share their heart rate/age while doing a hard row.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br /><br />Going anaerobic just means you are going at a pace you can,t hang on too very long. If you do a time piece at your best you always go anaerobic at the end off that piece. A 5 k piece is just around the treshhold border but it can,t be much above or else you can't go on. This is what is happening when you go off to fast. The lactic acid builds up faster than your body can clean up. So you have to back down. <br />The hartrate itself doesn,t say that much. The better a person is trained the longer he or she can sustain that hartrate. It is not uncommen for a well trained athlete to keep his/her hartrate at max for 10 min or even more. This during a 10 k orso.

[old] Sean Seamus · Post by **[old] Sean Seamus** » February 17th, 2006, 8:01 am

can anyone tell me why a young rower (age 15) would get a heart rate monitor? i just dont see the use....... <br /><br /><br />Several reasons suggest themselves<br /><br />For one, if the individual is coaching him/herself, to have feedback on intensity level. Note that an HR monitor is ONE source of feedback, it not The Definitive Guide, just as a speedometer in a car is not the last word in appropriate speed. And, even New Powerful Zoommaster cars come with speedometers.<br /><br />To a degree, some of this thread seems to take the point of view that an HR monitor is a killjoy, limiting upper levels of effort. Training needs to address the whole spectrum of intensities. Constantly going "hard" brings problems later on, some of them very serious, and with beginners - which all young people are - leads to a distorted sense of Perceived Exertion.<br /><br />I'd appreciate some info on the dangers of excessive high level HR. I know a few, but only anecdotally from chatting with medical people, and can't yet write a coherent overall description. All of the layman level stuff I've read skirts this area.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » February 17th, 2006, 8:05 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Ben Rea @ Feb 17 2006, 12:29 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>can anyone tell me why a young rower (age 15) would get a heart rate monitor? i just dont see the use.......

<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />To prevent overtraining. Young people tend to go allout every time they train. Limiting the hf during a workout can prevent that. Of course you will hav to know his/her max and rest hartrate enz.... <br />Just taking 220 - age as max. can be totally wrong.

[old] BobD · Post by **[old] BobD** » February 17th, 2006, 9:50 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Feb 17 2006, 07:05 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Ben Rea @ Feb 17 2006, 12:29 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>can anyone tell me why a young rower (age 15) would get a heart rate monitor? i just dont see the use.......

<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />To prevent overtraining. Young people tend to go allout every time they train. Limiting the hf during a workout can prevent that. Of course you will hav to know his/her max and rest hartrate enz.... <br />Just taking 220 - age as max. can be totally wrong.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well wrong by about +- 20 BPM according to most literature.